Disposed

Roshan Lal v. the Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2026CWP/21091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of a coordinate bench judgment. The authority was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks in light of the judgment in CWP No. 6013 of 2023.

Roshan Lal Vs the Hrtc and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.21091 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 02.01.2026

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Roshan Lal …….Petitioners Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6013 of 2023, titled Braham Dass vs. HRTC and another, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of respondents fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶6

Having perused the averments contained in the petition

¶7

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied

¶8

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

¶10

upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

¶11

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶12

January 02, 2026 (shankar)

Roshan Lal v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bala Vs State of Hp and Others

Niraj Kumar Vs the Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Narayan Singh Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anupam Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others